The present invention relates to a single structure environment for multiple lure structures to enable consistent sampling and more precise data collection; multiple selection and utilization of baits for sampling; multiple trap installations and support; and elimination of the need for multiple trap structures each having different capabilities.
For the purpose of using and sampling the effectiveness of lure products, insect populations, and trap environments, or to reduce the insect population, there is currently a need to use a variety of trap types which are conventionally available in order to take utilize different lure structure support capabilities as dictated by the physical shapes often dictated by the types of lure structures upon which different types of lure chemicals are supported. The term xe2x80x9clurexe2x80x9d generally relates to a chemical agent or attractant and may exist in a pure state or with some other agent. Other agents may include killing agents where the lure structure also provides a killing mechanism for the insects or bonding agents with which the lure may be affixed to a structure to which it is attached. Killing can occur by adhesion, poison or other disabling mechanism.
Most available single traps will accommodate only one or two kinds of lure structures, and allow a maximum of two lure structures to be simultaneously employed. Lures are typically not always available in a variety of structures, the structure being often dictated by the characteristics of material transport or simply by the manufacturer""s fiat. Because most conventional traps do not invite the use of more than one lure structure at a time, nor provide support for the majority of lure support structures available, the ability to utilize many different lures and lure structures both for investigating lure effectiveness and insect sampling could prove quite costly. The difference in lure support structures can be due to the makeup of the lure itself. Not all compositions are amenable to being supported from a card, for example. Some compositions must of necessity exist as a liquid and their liquid nature may be vital to the material transport of the lure attractant. Since each different type of lure structure would require the purchase of a trap which would accommodate its corresponding shape, size and support requirements. Conventional designs that disallow the use of simultaneous lures will, as a result, require a user to purchase and keep a larger number of traps each type of which facilitates utilizing a single type of lure, especially where several lures are generally never available in a single structure. For a user who required a large number of traps to cover a significant area, the cost of purchasing many different kinds of traps in order to utilize different types of lure structures could be prohibitively expensive and storage prohibitively burdensome. For example, a user requiring only 100 traps to cover a given area would be required to purchase 300 traps in order to utilize three different kinds of lure structure, three times the number that would normally be necessary.
Furthermore, studies conducted to investigate lure efficacy and that utilize conventional traps of various configurations would likely yield unreliable results. For example, if lure A were placed in a triangular paper trap and lure B were placed in a cylindrical plastic trap, it would be difficult, if not impossible to determine whether a discrepancy in the level of insect attraction and capture was due to trap shape and characteristics, or difference in lure composition between the two traps.
It is also obvious that the expense associated with performing a survey using two lures within a given area requires using multiple traps within a same area in order to support two lure structures, each having different structure requiring a different trap. Conventional traps then prevent a user from gaining the savings of the multiple of less types of traps, as well as with the common mixing and diffusion effect of placing the lures and lure structures in a very close proximity at the locations where atmospheric diffusion of the attractant begins. In addition, where the attractant and capturing structure are provided in a single package, the conventional traps available on the market would still not enable a user to test the effects of using such lures in the presence of each other, and to measure the competitive attraction and killing efficacy simultaneously. For example, if lure A was known to attract insect A successfully, and lure B was known to attract insect B successfully, the combination of lure A with lure B might well be observed to attract not only insects A and B, but insect C as well. Such experimentation by a user would not be possible using conventional traps. On the other hand if combination lure and killing structures A and B were provided simultaneously, and more insects attached themselves to structure A than B, it may result in a finding that A is more attractive than B at higher concentrations, such as may be found within an enclosed trap.
In regard to trap placement, conventional traps may be suspended, or may be placed on a flat surface, but are not usually configured such that either method of use may be implemented as the available structure warrants. Some traps have a flat bottom and must therefore be used as hanging traps, since they have no route for insects to enter if the trap placed on a flat surface, or with a special support which allows access to the bottom entrance. Similarly, most traps designed for surface use have no means by which they may be suspended. Although a surface type trap could certainly be modified in order to facilitate suspension, the process would require considerable time and energy, especially as effort multiplied for a large number of traps, and the modified traps may not necessarily continue to function as expected. The placement limitations of either of the conventionally available traps may also interfere with attraction of certain insects, or may lead to erroneous results in studies conducted to test the efficacy of a trap or to sample certain insect populations or certain lure attractants. For this reason, neither of the conventional options for traps makes an optimal sampling instrument.
Another important disadvantage of most traps is that they are not ventilated. In addition to not being ventilated, conventional traps may have connecting parts that fit together very snugly, further decreasing air circulation within the trap. This may prove problematic in extremely hot and humid conditions, as the trapped heat and moisture may cause damage to the lures that may render them ineffective. More importantly, where a liquid lure or exterminator were used in the reservoir of the trap, any significant amount of heating might create a vapor-heat barrier at the opening in the trap. Because there is only one opening for insect egress in conventional traps, such a barrier would very likely prove to be a deterrent to insects that might otherwise enter the trap. This is another potential problem in conducting studies that analyze the usefulness of the different types of traps and lures.
Finally, most conventional traps are designed such that they are not amenable to the utilization of an adherent type lure structure that is best affixed to a relatively flat surface. This is yet another feature of conventional traps that hinders the use of different lure structures in tandem for the object of targeting heightened performance of the trap or lures. Many traditional traps may also obscure viewing of the trap contents, making it fairly difficult to accurately analyze the results especially spot checks during the middle of the progression of a sampling without first opening or actually emptying the trap. Having to interrupt a sampling period by removing a trap for inspection introduces a further source of error both for the time the trap is missing and by tampering with the trap.
The insect trap of the present invention employs a variety of synergistic features which constitute a superior trap. The insect trap allows for use of multiple types of lures and their associated lure structures either individually or in tandem in order to optimize insect attraction. Because the present invention allows great versatility in selecting and utilizing various lures, it makes a desirable, economical, and efficient tool for conducting studies to test lure effectiveness, to capture insects for pest control, or to sample insect populations.
The insect trap of the present invention has a top housing member and bottom housing member that, when connected together, form a chamber into which insects are lured and contained. The insect trap of the present has multiple features that make it possible to utilize any one of a variety of lure and their lure structures, as well as a combination of multiple lure structures simultaneously. A series of offset tabs extending from the lid are provided for holding a card type lure structure. Additionally, the lid has a plurality of projections that will accommodate other types of lure structures that may hold a variety of different kinds of lure, including solid, liquid, gelatinous, or granular. The first of these projections will support either a vial type lure structure, suspendable by use of a rubber nipple, or a permeable lure container, connectable directly to the projection itself.
The insect trap of the present invention also has an adjustable plugged vent in the lid, including a slotted basket structure that extends into the chamber of the insect trap. When the plug is removed from the vent opening, the slotted basket provides yet another method by which a lure structure may be suspended. Finally, the insect trap of the present invention has an overall cylindrical shape, with side walls that will easily accommodate an adherent type lure structure or lure card. The flat sides of the trap also enable a user to more easily examine the contents of the trap so that direct contact with lures, exterminator materials, or captured insects is minimized, and so that the contents may be easily and cleanly disposed of once viewing is completed. If multiple lures are utilized, the ability to inspect the undisturbed contents of the proposed insect trap will serve as an aide in assessing not only the type of insect captured by each of the lures, but also which of the lures may be more effective given a specific type of insect.
The base of the insect trap of the present invention has an opening that allows insects to enter, and also forms a reservoir that allows a user to employ either an attractive or an exterminator material in most any form that requires an open container. Note that the material contained in the reservoir of the insect trap may also exist in conjunction with any of the aforementioned lure structures attachable to the lid of the insect trap. In combination with the vented lid, the opening in the base allows for air flow through the chamber of the insect trap. The vent plug is manually adjustable within the basket structure so that the amount of air flowing through the trap may be easily controlled. In the event of hot or humid conditions, the air flow afforded by the vent of the proposed insect trap would allow any vapors from the contained lures to escape, lessening the chance that insect attraction would be adversely affected by a heat or vapor barrier at the entry. Another advantage to a well ventilated insect trap is that a cooler environment is created by allowing air to flow through the chamber of the insect trap. Insects are more likely to enter into a well-ventilated chamber than into a chamber that may be overheated or may have unusually high humidity. The top of the insect trap of the present invention has a series of locking slots, interlockably engageable with a corresponding series of projections located on the base. The top and base together are designed to form a third opening for the promotion of air flow through the chamber of the insect trap. A final advantage to a well ventilated insect trap is that any excess heat that may cause vaporization of the lure will help to distribute the lure vapors through the vent and into the atmosphere outside of the trap, potentially attracting more insects than would have been possible than without venting.
Removal of the plug from the vent of the insect trap of the present invention will also provide another entry access for insects, potentially increasing the number of insects caught by the trap. Because the vent basket is elongate and frusto-conical, an insect advancing any appreciable distance into the basket would have no significant probability to escape along the same path from which it entered.
Another important feature of the insect trap of the present invention is a set of legs on the bottom that, in combination with a hanger located on the top, allows the trap to be used either as a hanging trap or a surface trap. The legs allow continuous access to the main entry through the opening in the base even when the trap is resting on a surface. Because the insect trap of the present invention may be used in either hanging or resting capacity, the need for purchasing many different kinds of traps in order to target certain insect populations is eliminated. Subsequently, the insect trap of the present invention is both an effective and economical tool.